Burt Township residents opposed to land purchase

Friday

Sep 6, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Property owner John Beery said his main concerns were the financial condition of the township, the cost of trail maintenance for the new Burt Lake trail and the cost for maintenance of the park, should it be developed. He cited the fact there have been no cost estimates regarding purchase, development or maintenance of the park He said covering the trail costs have already been committed to by the township board prior to knowing what the cost will be in the future as a variety of users impact the trail. “This is worse than tax and spend. It's a spend and tax issue,” said Beery.

Mary Barker Staff Writer, @mbarkerCDT @mbarkerCDT

By MARY BARKERmbarker@cheboygantribune.comBURT LAKE – It was packed inside with standing room only in the entryway at the Burt Township hall Thursday evening, where the vast majority of those who spoke were opposed to the township's possible purchase from the Department of Natural Resources, (DNR), of a parcel of lakefront land commonly known as the "Garnecki" property.Ironically, the property in the center of the debate was the same parcel the Burt Lake Preservation Association and the township spent upward of $90,000 in a legal dispute with the DNR over zoning some 15 years ago. The case went to the State Supreme Court and the township and BLPA prevailed under the premise that it was zoned residential and should be returned to residential use. At the time, the DNR was planning to develop a boat launch at the site that would have required significant dredging.The DNR is divesting of some properties and had approached the township as a governmental unit for a first option on acquisition before putting the property up for sale or at auction for bidding. The township has identified in its 2012 recreational plan a desire to develop a township park and has considered the Garnecki parcel, with about 300-plus feet of Burt Lake frontage on 3.5 acres, as a site for a sandy beach and picnic area possibly with playground equipment.To the heavy applause of those in the audience, more than a dozen spoke against the measure, echoing similar concerns about the impact such a development would have on residential properties, which surround the wooded site. Concerns included park maintenance, safety and supervision, noise and trash pollution, boat traffic and the lack of any detailed proposal outlining costs, what the park would look like and how it would be funded at the development stage and in the future.Several voiced disappointment about the idea that the township would consider granting itself a special use permit for the purpose of developing the park despite the language in the zoning ordinance under special uses, which would be in conflict with that specific use. This was especially significant given it was nearly the exact issue that the township fought to prohibit the DNR from all the way to the State Supreme Court in the 1990s. Stuart Cheney, a BLPA member, said he was certain that if the township took steps to change the use permitted or the zoning of the parcel, it would be challenged legally.Property owner John Beery said his main concerns were the financial condition of the township, the cost of trail maintenance for the new Burt Lake trail and the cost for maintenance of the park, should it be developed. He cited the fact there have been no cost estimates regarding purchase, development or maintenance of the park He said covering the trail costs have already been committed to by the township board prior to knowing what the cost will be in the future as a variety of users impact the trail. "This is worse than tax and spend. It's a spend and tax issue," said Beery.Ann Baughman, a member of the Burt Township Planning Commission, was the sole person to speak in favor of the proposed park. She said families who don't live on the waterfront need a place for day use on the lake, which she said is the fourth largest lake with about 36 miles of shoreline — less than a mile of which is open for public use. She also took issue with the prevalent belief that the park would devalue surrounding residential properties, stating her research indicated that parks add value to nearby properties.The Garneck parcel in question is less than two miles from the DNR's Maple Bay Campground, which was recently renovated with a new boat launch, parking and bathrooms. BLPA member Chris Kindsvatter said in recent discussions with top-level DNR officials he was told that day use and swimming are allowed at the Maple Bay site by the general public; a statement that many in the audience had been led to believe was not the case.Also brought before the board by multiple members of the audience was the desire to develop a better communication link between the township board and property owners, many of whom are not year-round residents and can't physically attend meeting. Requests were made to be informed in writing or via e-mail of all upcoming public meetings by the board and planning commission. Discussion was held about setting up a system for conference calls so persons outside of the area could participate on speaker phones.Township Supervisor Harold Koviak said attendance probably neared 100."The meeting was well-attended, everybody spoke and we made our presentation," Koviak said. "We received the comments from the public and will take them under advisement. We will investigate further with the DNR and go from there."